Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight.
The given argument compares the cost and the risk involved in the manned and unmanned space probe missions. The author concludes the unmanned missions are more economical and sustainable with respect to manned space missions. Yet, the author seems to commit several flaws such as the direct comparison between both kinds of missions, ignoring the necessity of both programs, and unclear data representation.
The manned and unmanned missions are compared directly on the basis of cost and risk involved in the tasks. Yet, it might not be the best way to compare as the human involvement in the manned missions implicitely increases the cost and the risk. Hence, the both manned and unmanned space missions are fundamentally different. Thus, it might not be a good approach to compare them in a direct manner.
Moreover, the author is assuming the data gathered by the manned and unmanned space programs to be the same. This assumption is flawed as the objectives of a manned mission is often completely different from an unmanned mission. The astronauts are assigned the job of repairing and maintenance of the space stations and satellites. Many times, the effect of space exploration on a human body is also studied through manned space programs. On the other hand, the satellites are more useful for exploration and gathering data about the celestial objects.
The author states that sending satellites into space is more economical and less risky compared to sending men and women into space. Yet, the data for the comparison is not presented and thus, the author's assumption seems to be too strong without any valid evidence.
In conclusion, the assumptions by the author regarding the validity of comparing both space programs, the objectives of both the missions being the same and the unmanned space program being more economical, are flawed. The conclusion by the author might not remain valid once the flaws are corrected.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | Krisha Lakhani | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | riyarmy | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Anish Sapkota | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | DCAD123 | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-30 | BusariMoruf | 55 | view |
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men an 60
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 316 350
No. of Characters: 1584 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.216 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.013 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.646 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.472 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a direct manner" with adverb for "direct"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... not be a good approach to compare them in a direct manner. Moreover, the author is assuming th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 198, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mparison is not presented and thus, the authors assumption seems to be too strong witho...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, if, moreover, regarding, so, thus, in conclusion, such as, with respect to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 13.6137724551 7% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 5.0 28.8173652695 17% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 316.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15506329114 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71863808367 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.455696202532 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.703586567 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.8125 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292835694647 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112741085128 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0726792618848 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172651365212 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0373406534263 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.